rever until he proves that God exists at all. Because of this, I do not believe God can be proved by means of St. Thomas Aquinas' first argument or by any similar means. In St. Thomas Aquinas' fifth argument, however, I do not see any flaws in logic and I do not thing it needs to rely on any other arguments to be valid. Just by observing the universe, we have found that it operates according to certain rules or laws. However, it seems very unlikely that these laws just appeared out of nowhere, that they emerged with the creation of the universe. According to currently accepted scientific theory, the universe started with the big bang. This theory also states that, if anything existed before the big bang, we cannot predict what it was like because physical laws did not govern the universe at that time. So, it seems, physical laws must have just appeared as a result of the big bang. Science, which traditionally tries to explain the universe without the "crutch" or involvement of God, cannot and could never explain why these laws exist in the first place. The only explanation I can see is that God has put them there to govern the universe. This is the same argument St. Thomas Aquinas uses, and it seems to be completely self- supporting and free of any flaws in logic. For these reasons, I believe this argument to be better than the first argument. Proving the existence of God is a worthwhile task. If someone did come up with a complete, foolproof argument for the existence of God, the people of the world would have no choice but to believe in His existence. However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy effort, I believe that such a task is not possible through logic and reasoning alone. There is an element of faith that must be present for people to believe, and if that element is not there, no matter how foolproof an argument seems to be, there will always be those who do not believe. In his fifth argument, St/ Thomas Aquinas make...
